Wizards of the Coast unveiled the results of their latest survey and I was surprised by a number of things.
First of all, fighter was the most played class. What! To date, I've only seen two fighter PCs. (Cleric, rogue, wizard, paladin were the next most popular classes.)
Slightly less surprising, human was the most played race.
Perhaps the greatest surprise of all to me was that, after new feats, respondents most wanted new character classes. Here I was thinking that 5e class archetypes could fill out any concept niches not already covered. Aren't people worried about bloat and power creep?
At the rate 5E releases stuff not so much - 6th edition will likely be released long before they reach the bloat stage - depending on your opinion of what bloat is. If you define bloat as the first options past the PHB then it's already too late. ;D
Fair enough. I'm just surprised that people are already wanting more. I play one session a week and since 5e came out I've only played two characters: warlock and fighter (yeah, I tried it). It'll take me a long time to exhaust the classes and archetypes we already have.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps the greatest surprise of all to me was that, after new feats, respondents most wanted new character classes. Here I was thinking that 5e class archetypes could fill out any concept niches not already covered. Aren't people worried about bloat and power creep?
The class archetypes definitely cover a lot of bases, but there are still some notable gaps. One classic example is anything alchemy-based, and my own "pet" example would be an arcane half-caster martial (something with the same casting progression and combat chassis as the ranger and paladin, but arcane and differently-themed).
Also, I suspect that a large proportion of the clamor for new classes is for psionics in particular, rather than just more classes in general.
As for power creep, I don't think 5E is nearly as vulnerable to it as a system like Pathfinder is.
The class archetypes definitely cover a lot of bases, but there are still some notable gaps. One classic example is anything alchemy-based.
Yes, there is that. Can anyone give me an example of an alchemist from fantasy fiction/TV/film? I'm scratching my head. Not saying there aren't any...just can't think of any right now.
I personally like it when a character concept inspires a class rather than the other way around.
I started to answer the new survey down at the bottom of the page. It referenced articles, so I read them, but when I backed out to go back to the survey I must have closed the survey window in the process. Now it won't let me finish the survey as I get a message saying:
"You have already taken this survey."
Must have got my IP address and kicked out that message even though I only answered 4 questions.
Bummer, I was hoping to finish it. Maybe if I use a different computer it will work.
EPoI, that happened to me once too. I didn't realize it was going to be so specific about articles from 6+ months ago, so when I went to review them, I lost the survey.
Those surveys really should have links to the (portions of the) articles they reference.
The Full Metal Alchemist anime is, as the title might suggest, full of them. Faust in several tales is an alchemist and magician. Ra's al Ghul in Batman is one of several superhero-alchemists.
Interesting. I haven't seen the others, but Full Metal Alchemist and Ra's al Ghul seem a bit more like warlocks than alchemists, despite the former's name. I mean, they draw pentagrams on the ground to conduct their rituals. And I know Ra's al Ghul only from the 90's animated series and Batman Begins, but he seems more like a warlock in the former and a monk in the latter.
Neither of them sound much like Pathfinder's alchemist.
The class archetypes definitely cover a lot of bases, but there are still some notable gaps. One classic example is anything alchemy-based.Yes, there is that. Can anyone give me an example of an alchemist from fantasy fiction/TV/film? I'm scratching my head. Not saying there aren't any...just can't think of any right now.
I personally like it when a character concept inspires a class rather than the other way around.
The Full Metal Alchemist anime is, as the title might suggest, full of them. Faust in several tales is an alchemist and magician. Ra's al Ghul in Batman is one of several superhero-alchemists. Most sparks in the Girl Genius series do more than one thing, but alchemy is one of their common skills. The Witcher series has a large number of examples of skilled alchemy, though they tend not to be just alchemists.
I'd probably suggest a 'Mad Scientist' type more than a pure alchemist, with options for crafting creatures and devices in there. It would cover a wider range of archetypes than an alchemist-class alone.
Great list!
Here's some more, both in fiction and historically.
In addition, Viktor Frankenstein (the monster's creator) was an alchemist. And don't forget the most famous one: Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde!
Not surprising at all that the human was the most played race. And I am sure if they broke it down even more, it's the varian human played the most (the one with the bonus feat). Take away the human variant, and people are more likely to play something else (or take away its bonus feat).
I am a little surprised the fighter was the most played, as I figure more people would play the warlock. I have personally seen more warlocks than fighters. But of course, my experience is just mine.
While I prefer the archetype thing they got going, some classes wouldn't quite work out as archetypes of existing classes (I still think an artificer archetype for wizard is a poor choice). Psionics is one, though really only the psion would need its own class (psychic warrior could just be a fighter, like the eldritch warrior). I personally would want more classes and archetypes, not so much the feats. Races and backgrounds would be nice too.
In addition, Viktor Frankenstein (the monster's creator) was an alchemist. And don't forget the most famous one: Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde!
Yes, those do seem much more like alchemists. But those stories are set in the 1800s or 1900s. Far and away from the typical Golden Age/medieval fantasy setting.
Fighter makes sense to me. Fighters are newbie friendly, and 5E is the most newbie friendly system. Plus fighters are FINALLY worthwhile. (For what it's worth, I always struggle not to dip Rogue when I play - expertise is AWESOME.)
I am certain the human variant is inflating that poll. It's cheese and should be changed immediately so there's good reason not to take the variant. A feat is easily worth every other racial bonus humans get COMBINED.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's cheese and should be changed immediately so there's good reason not to take the variant. A feat is easily worth every other racial bonus humans get COMBINED.
It's not that the variant human is cheese, it's that the "standard" human is pathetic.
The variant human gets +1/+1, a skill, and a feat.
The other races get +2/+1 (or in some cases +2/+2 or +2/+1/+1), often a skill or two, a language, and a grab-bag of hard-to-emulate features like darkvision, breath weapons, immunities/resistances, save advantages, and so forth.
When you compare the variant human to the other races, that feat is filling in for a second increase in your main stat and an assortment of powerful abilities.
If you were building a monk and there were a feat that gave you +1 DEX, darkvision, immunity to magic sleep effects, advantage on saves against charm effects, the ability to get a long rest in half the time, a free racial language, +5ft move speed, and the ability to use Stealth when only lightly obscured; would you consider taking it with your variant human? If so, then you just built an elf, and the variant human is not cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is a pretty great class. Especially the archetypes. The Champion is super easy, the Eldritch Knight has spells, and the Battle Master has martial maneuvers that are basically non-magic spells that let you do neat combat tricks that also cause additional damage--especially on critical hits!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And also, 5e is newbie friendly? Compared to what? It fairly solidly runs into similar, if less extreme, problems as 3e in that it's really very easy to make a character that looks like what the player imagines and fails to deliver on it.
Really? We haven't noticed that. It seems to us that you really have to work at being lousy at your chosen schtick. In general we've found it easy to find mechanical ways to portray the character we want without noticing any blind alleys.
Do you have any specific examples in mind?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? We haven't noticed that.
Not have I. I was attributing the lack of complaining to the relative newness of 5e more than anything else, but I have yet to have anyone complain that their character is useless, underpowered, or can't do the things they were expecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, Viktor Frankenstein (the monster's creator) was an alchemist. And don't forget the most famous one: Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde!Yes, those do seem much more like alchemists. But those stories are set in the 1800s or 1900s. Far and away from the typical Golden Age/medieval fantasy setting.
In that case, we'd better remove rapiers and full plate from the equipment tables, since those are Renaissance-era technologies. And scimitars also seem a little too Middle Eastern for a medieval European setting. And what's with Clerics getting to worship all those Pagan gods? Everyone knows there was only one God that counted in the Middle Ages.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, we'd better remove rapiers and full plate from the equipment tables, since those are Renaissance-era technologies. And scimitars also seem a little too Middle Eastern for a medieval European setting. And what's with Clerics getting to worship all those Pagan gods? Everyone knows there was only one God that counted in the Middle Ages.In addition, Viktor Frankenstein (the monster's creator) was an alchemist. And don't forget the most famous one: Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde!Yes, those do seem much more like alchemists. But those stories are set in the 1800s or 1900s. Far and away from the typical Golden Age/medieval fantasy setting.
"I don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval European.
You have medieval knights (500-1500 AD) wearing renaissance era armor (1400-1700 AD), wielding roman era falcatas (500 BC-500 AD), worshiping Greek gods (800 BC-600 AD), traveling with native American shamans (12,000 years ago - today) who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs (200 million years ago) while wearing the hides of Saharan beasts, who are accompanied by modern Japanese schoolgirls in black pajamas wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho (1600-1800 AD), a mysterious man in a western long coat wielding an 18th century revolver, and an old man wearing robes and a pointed hat who chants mathematical equations to control reality, all together on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient fire-breathing spell-casting reptiles, and a sentient jello."
(Link to original source in my profile)
Cheers. I can see the thief's point. The others don't really make sense to me, but We all have different approaches to building characters. I haven't noticed the "too easy or too hard" issue, but that's probably a matter of taste too.
Can I ask what system you found worked best for your group in this regard?
The person playing the fighter said, "I don't feel like a badass, I feel like a bully. The numbers are stacked so heavily in my favour that I can just go over and kill something without feeling like it's a challenge.
Interesting. The DM can always throw tougher opponents at the group - that being said, maybe the root issue is the desire to "feel like a badass."
The person playing the thief wasn't pleases because she'd made a character who she wanted to be great at infiltration, at getting into places and discovering their secrets, so that the party could plan a strategy based on the information she'd gathered.
That's a difficult character concept for a team-based game.
I'm also curious if you found a different system that fit your player's expectations.
These examples from my weekend group when the collective decision was they'd never play D&D again might be interesting.
The person playing the fighter said, "I don't feel like a badass, I feel like a bully. The numbers are stacked so heavily in my favour that I can just go over and kill something without feeling like it's a challenge. I don't have to think about how to approach a fight at all." Subsequently he made it clear he didn't want to play a spellcaster, he wanted to play a fighter who had to work to win fights but could still do so if he fought cleverly.
I feel like this an encounter design issue, not a character issue.
There's a concept called "Combat as Sport vs Combat as War" and it feels like this player was expecting CaW, but ended up playing CaS. When the expectations for he different play styles clash, the game can get frustrating.
I feel like this issue can be solved by changing how the GM designs encounters and adventures, and changing how one approaches the game. I'm a CaW type person, so I notice that when encounters and adventures are set up to be CaS, I often feel overpowered with my characters. Likewise, I have several players who are CaS, and when I designed encounters that are not suited to their style, they can get overwhelmed. In CaW, strategy and tactics are the most important part of overcoming challenges. In CaS, you can overcome challenges without having to try as hard; micro tactics are still important, but the play style is very different.
As a side note, most published adventures are designed with CaS in mind. So if you're running published games, it may be difficult to overcome this players frustration with the game.
The person playing the thief wasn't pleases because she'd made a character who she wanted to be great at infiltration, at getting into places and discovering their secrets, so that the party could plan a strategy based on the information she'd gathered. Probability being what it is, she found that any situation where it wasn't possible to do this with one or two rolls meant the character kept getting caught. And she felt that her role became DPS, liability, or someone who stood there listening while the casters did the things she'd made her character for better than she could.
Solo missions is a rather challenging concept to design for in this game, which in inherently team based. Sure, the character could go off on her own, and while she's doing that, everyone else is sitting on their hands doing nothing. So yeah. I agree that designing a character for solo play in a team based game can be rather challenging.
But let's say that we wanted to do this anyways. One key thing we have to remember is that the die roll is only for when the results are uncertain. If a character has to roll for every sneak check, every perception, every noise potential, every wall to scale, at every round of an infiltration mission, somethings gone terribly wrong. It shouldn't be *that* difficult every round of a mission that you have to roll for every little thing. Instead, just have the character do what they're specialized in, and then roll for critical moments. In addition, give them the opportunity to make up for the roll somehow (you failed the sneak check by 2, so you're successful, but the guard got intrigued by a sound and is coming to investigate). Or maybe allow a quick dispatch so she can be on her way. If you require them to roll for every thing, then you're going to invalidate a lot of characters.
I'm very curious what kind of spells completey invalidate this character concept. All I can think of is invisibility, which they should be casting on the infiltrator anyways, not on themselves. Clairvoyance can't be moved, arcane eye can't get past solid barriers (and can't here), Divination only allows a single question, and scrying is expensive, requires a modified saving throw, and can only target a single individual.
With all that, an actual person on the grounds is almost always better, as they can think, interact with objects, rifle through or steal papers, bypass barriers, and more.
The wizard-player also didn't like it, for slightly different reasons. They'd wanted a particular type of character, subtle and crafty and relying on indirect spells and cleverness. And they got that. Plus a whole lot more, including things which were clearly much more useful in a lot of situations. So their objection was that their character either had to be too stupid/stubborn to use the right 'tool' for the job from their huge selection of tools, or do things that they didn't want as part of their character concept.
The wizard only gets two spells per level, so unless you're giving them a ton of extra spells from found spellbooks or the option to have nearly every spell in the game, then they can still achieve this concept. If the player is really looking for this concept, then they're not out researching the spells they don't want, so the only way for them to acquire those spells is for the GM to give them to him.
One other, from my occasional Wednesday group, is of a player who turned up wanting to hit some stuff and see what happened. He hated it because of the way spells could shut him down so trivially, and he'd have twenty minutes sat on his hands while the one thing he really wanted was denied to him because he hadn't put an effort to design a character with a set of parameters that would make them not be "total crap" at saving throws that mattered. He didn't want to play a game where the only dice he rolled was to stop doing nothing, nor to be patronised by the GM refusing to target him.
Are you sure you're not playing Pathfinder or some other edition of D&D? Maybe 3.x? Pretty much every single spell that can shut a fighter down trivially has a saving throw every single round. Hold person? Save every round. Slow? Save every round. Even sleep has to roll for hit points - good luck getting over the fighters hit points past 2nd level.
What spells were being used here? I'm really curious to know.
I'm also very curious about the comment about not building to saving throws which were total crap. How does one even do this? Every class has preset saves which they're proficient in, and every class has a common and an uncommon saving throw. The fighter gets Con, and that's The most used saving throw in the game. There are 169 spells and monster abilities which require a con saving throw. The next closest is dex with 114. Then wis with 90. Even among the uncommon ones, strength has 78, int has 8, and charisma has 22. So a character with str and con saving throws can save against more abilities that anyone else in the game. How does that "suck"?
There really isn't "building not to suck" in 5e. The classes are well balanced throughout the majority of the game (levels 1-16), and even on high level games (17+), there's strong debate over actual caster supremacy. Sure, casters have more tools, but martial characters are very competent in this game, and every class is able to contribute out of combat.
The weekend group has been meeting since 1992 with four people (I'm one of those) as the core and a few others in and out. We've played with a lot of systems in that time and in a lot of different genres and styles, so I don't think I could pick out one best system. If someone was proposing a game the most enthusiastic 'Yes' would come from Pendragon, The One Ring, Paranoia, Traveller, and probably Tunnels and Trolls. A good pitch would sell a lot of other systems such as Runequest and other D100 variants, BECMI D&D, Heroquest (Robin Laws' 2e version), GURPS, Fate, and Eclipse Phase. There's be no chance with World of Darkness, D&D 3e/4e/5e, Chivalry and Sorcery (for rather odd reasons), or any of the official Star Wars or Star Trek games.Cheers. I can see the thief's point. The others don't really make sense to me, but We all have different approaches to building characters. I haven't noticed the "too easy or too hard" issue, but that's probably a matter of taste too.
Can I ask what system you found worked best for your group in this regard?
I didn't mean best system overall (we have a similar wide range of experience and I no longer think of games as being meaningfully ranked) I just wondered which system you found minimised the specific problem of building a character who turns out to not be any good at what you thought you were going to excel at.
"I don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval European.
You have medieval knights (500-1500 AD) wearing renaissance era armor (1400-1700 AD), wielding roman era falcatas (500 BC-500 AD), worshiping Greek gods (800 BC-600 AD), traveling with native American shamans (12,000 years ago - today) who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs (200 million years ago) while wearing the hides of Saharan beasts, who are accompanied by modern Japanese schoolgirls in black pajamas wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho (1600-1800 AD), a mysterious man in a western long coat wielding an 18th century revolver, and an old man wearing robes and a pointed hat who chants mathematical equations to control reality, all together on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient fire-breathing spell-casting reptiles, and a sentient jello."
Huh. You make a compelling argument.
I did say Golden Age, which covers the Greek and Roman myths and legends. And the medieval era, of course. I would even include the Renaissance and Age of Exploration, usually leaving out firearms. I'd also include anything non-European. So samurai and ninjas, Aztecs and Incans, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian gods. Ziggurats and pyramids, all that.
But anything after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750ish, with steam engines and railroads, urbanization, and agricultural revolutions) feels a little forced in a standard D&D setting.
But that's just me. You guys can all play however you like.
The 'tougher opponents' race ends with people playing casters and trying to bypass the problem without fighting at all, in my experience.
Is that experience based on systems other than 5th edition though? I haven't noticed any significant disparity between martial classes and casting classes in 5e.
It's not much of a team game when one player solves a problem on their own through magic, either.
Sure it is - A player solving A problem with a spell isn't an issue. I think you're getting caught up in a balance argument when the root of the "sneaky characters going off on their own to solve a problem" has nothing to do with balance, it's all about screen time. If the spellcaster has a 10 minute solo scene where they describe their spell and such, then that would also be a problem.
If you're noticing spellcasters constantly solving problems and invalidating other classes, then that would be a problem. I'm having a hard time seeing that in 5th edition though
5th edition is very DM/house rule friendly. If you find with your group of long time players that certain spells or classes do thing you don't like, you can change them to more for your group's expectations.
The reason I was asking about a specific system that your group prefers is to see if there are certain mechanics in that system that work better for your group. I'm curious what that mechanic or mechanics looks like.
"I don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval European.
You have medieval knights (500-1500 AD) wearing renaissance era armor (1400-1700 AD), wielding roman era falcatas (500 BC-500 AD), worshiping Greek gods (800 BC-600 AD), traveling with native American shamans (12,000 years ago - today) who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs (200 million years ago) while wearing the hides of Saharan beasts, who are accompanied by modern Japanese schoolgirls in black pajamas wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho (1600-1800 AD), a mysterious man in a western long coat wielding an 18th century revolver, and an old man wearing robes and a pointed hat who chants mathematical equations to control reality, all together on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient fire-breathing spell-casting reptiles, and a sentient jello."
Huh. You make a compelling argument.
I did say Golden Age, which covers the Greek and Roman myths and legends. And the medieval era, of course. I would even include the Renaissance and Age of Exploration, usually leaving out firearms. I'd also include anything non-European. So samurai and ninjas, Aztecs and Incans, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian gods. Ziggurats and pyramids, all that.
But anything after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750ish, with steam engines and railroads, urbanization, and agricultural revolutions) feels a little forced in a standard D&D setting.
But that's just me. You guys can all play however you like.
That's a fair point. Pathfinder does have some post industrial revolution stuff, as well as some futuristic stuff, but it's hit and miss for whether people like it.
Side note: that wasn't my point, I got it from someone else. Credit where credit is due, after all. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'tougher opponents' race ends with people playing casters and trying to bypass the problem without fighting at all, in my experience.
"In your experience" with 5E, or "in your experience" with other versions of D&D and you're just assuming it'll go the same way in 5E? I suspect the latter, because 5E's changes to spells (and especially the 5E concentration mechanic) are very firmly aimed at getting rid of exactly that issue.
And it doesn't do anything about the problem of wanting to have to be clever to win, since 5e largely lacks anything that's more effective than piling on more damage unless you're a spellcaster.
This is simply untrue, unless you never played past 1st-2nd level, or your players chose the simplest of character options then complained about not having more (which would be their own fault). For example, the fighter can take the Battle Master path at 3rd level, gaining the ability to perform all sorts of interesting tactical abilities besides just "more damage". Similar non-damage options are available for other non-spellcaster classes as well. And that's before we even get to the feats, many of which open up new ways to nonmagically manipulate a combat situation.
Meanwhile, basic things like grappling and pushing and tripping can be attempted (without any of the feat taxes that 3.X requires) by literally anyone with a reasonable chance of success, so players can try anything they can imagine and expect a possibility of success.
So, your claim that 5E lacks non-damage tactical options for non-spellcasters is simply factually untrue.
It's not much of a team game when one player solves a problem on their own through magic, either.
Again, something that's much harder to do in 5E than in 3.X/PF.
And yes, several other systems did it better, the main problem being the binary nature of succeed/fail that D&D enforces, and the likelihood that failing one of a series of rolls is likely to make it a rescue mission for everyone else and trying to solve it with magic doesn't make that players failure the focus of the game for the next hour.
(Bolding added.)
That's the GM's fault, not 5E's fault. 5E didn't tell you to make a whole series of rolls and failing one wrecks the endeavor. In fact, 5E says to just make one roll when it actually matters.As I keep reading your complaints, just about all of them are things that I know are issues in 3.X/PF but that 5E specifically set out to change. Therefore, reading that you had XYZ issue in 5E makes it sound like the only part of the 5E rules you actually read was how to calculate your attack bonuses and then played what was effectively a 3.X game using 5E stats.
|
As for power creep, I don't think 5E is nearly as vulnerable to it as a system like Pathfinder is.
Yes - the character building is quite a bit more standardized. It's customization which make a system more vulnerable to unintentional power creep. It's usually a result of combinations that the designers didn't anticipate - like the Twist Away/Ring of Ferocious Action combo until it was errata'd.
Customization is a good thing all else being equal, but it's easy to run into unintended consequences.
(Which is a very different thing from some games which have intentional power creep to sell the new stuff. 40k did this semi-blatantly - which is one of the main reasons I finally gave it up.)
And the root problematic mechanic is D&D magic, as it has developed to the state in 5e. Since that's not present in other...
Hmm, well, that's too bad that you had these issues with 5e. The only thing I can suggest is to talk with your group of players and try to write down the mechanics of 5e that you don't like.
Assuming your players mostly agree on the problematic mechanics, then if you still want to try 5e, you can add some house rules to get the game working how your group wants it to work.
And the root problematic mechanic is D&D magic, as it has developed to the state in 5e. Since that's not present in other...Hmm, well, that's too bad that you had these issues with 5e. The only thing I can suggest is to talk with your group of players and try to write down the mechanics of 5e that you don't like.
Assuming your players mostly agree on the problematic mechanics, then if you still want to try 5e, you can add some house rules to get the game working how your group wants it to work.
Barring that, there's nothing wrong with disliking 5e. If it doesn't suite your tastes, then enjoy a different game that does. Problem solved!
If you really want to play it, but have an issue with a handful of mechanics, then find some house rules to fix the issues you're having. Problem solved!
5e is very customizable - it was designed that way. From a practical standpoint, you get solve nearly any issue with a couple of house rules, and if you can't, then the problem is likely so systemic that you'd be better off enjoying a different game entirely.
It's a game, the point is to have fun. If this game doesn't do it, enjoy a different game. :)
Most of the maneuvers do a cool thing as well as add the superiority die to damage, so fighters don't have to choose between piling on damage or a trick. I've found them quite potent, I especially liked the one that causes fear (and using it from range on opponents without ranged options so they can't approach for a round)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In my experience with 5e. Where we found, playing the playtest and individual modules and the one campaign from 1st to 12th level, that magic was intended to be the better solution to everything.
I can't speak to playtest material, but it's pretty irrelevant anyway. What did or didn't exist during a playtest has no bearing on what the final product's merits or flaws are.
Now, if your experience with the actual published final form of 5E was that from levels 1-12 magic was the better solution to everything, then could you give some examples of individual spells? I haven't found them yet (and in fact, their absence has been one of my favorite parts of 5E), but it's possible I've overlooked them.
Which spells contributed to this specific problem?
Having reached 12th level with a Battlemaster Fighter, the player involved was quite certain that none of those 'interesting tactical abilities' were as useful as piling on more damage. He had no recollection of a situation where he felt the manoeuvres had made a difference to the outcome of the fight.
Could you give examples of abilities that would have fit the bill but were absent from his options?
And announcing the availability of tricks that anyone can do really doesn't sell the 'specialness' of the fighter.
I wasn't speaking to the specialness of the fighter. We were discussing non-damage ways for non-spellcasters to contribute in combat. To take a statement meant to do one thing and say "Well, your statement failed at doing this completely different thing" is pretty dishonest of you.
What would you say was a reasonable number of checks? One to sneak in, one to sneak around discovering things, one more to sneak out. Does that sound terrible?
It's somewhat contextual (just how involved of an infiltration are we talking about here?), but when my players have wanted to have someone scout ahead and report back, I've resolved it with a single Stealth check. If they succeed, then they sneak up to the camp, see some things, and sneak back. If they fail, then (depending on the setup) maybe they realize they're making too much noise and don't get as close (costing them information but not getting them caught), or maybe a guard hears a noise and adds an obstacle that can still be dealt with (like a single guard stepping out to investigate a noise, and a single check convinces him that "it was nothing").
Again, it's contextual so there could always be exceptions, but in general I'll resolve scouting with a single Stealth check, and failure will not mean that suddenly everyone is staring right at you like you were glowing in the sky. Of course, you're welcome to run it differently as you choose. But if you do choose to require multiple consecutive successes and have catastrophic results for a single failure, that responsibility rests with you because of your choice, not on 5E as a system. It didn't tell you to do that.
...but it still discouraged the player when the magic-using characters kept succeeding without needing to roll at all.
Again I am left curious exactly which spells you're even talking about. Even invisibility doesn't remove the need for a check, so what exactly were your spellcasters doing that bypassed these challenges without a need for the associated skill check?
Most of the maneuvers do a cool thing as well as add the superiority die to damage, so fighters don't have to choose between piling on damage or a trick. I've found them quite potent, I especially liked the one that causes fear (and using it from range on opponents without ranged options so they can't approach for a round)
I've found that the battle master is the fighter least capable of contributing out of combat, compared to the other archetypes. The EK has spells and the Champion dominates in physical checks (they don't get half expertise only in checks they're proficient, which is certain skills and str/con saves, all other checks for strength, dex, and con they get a bonus on, including dex saves). In other words, champions rock. By far my favorite fighter archetype.
Most of the maneuvers do a cool thing as well as add the superiority die to damage, so fighters don't have to choose between piling on damage or a trick. I've found them quite potent, I especially liked the one that causes fear (and using it from range on opponents without ranged options so they can't approach for a round)I've found that the battle master is the fighter least capable of contributing out of combat, compared to the other archetypes. The EK has spells and the Champion dominates in physical checks (they don't get half expertise only in checks they're proficient, which is certain skills and str/con saves, all other checks for strength, dex, and con they get a bonus on, including dex saves). In other words, champions rock. By far my favorite fighter archetype.
The opposite of my opinion. Fighters in general do well on physical checks, I wasn't impressed by the Champion's extended physical coverage (I don't have the book in front of me, wasn't it just for str/dex checks they aren't proficient in and not saves?). On the other hand, BM gets a tool proficiency to expand breadth and later on, can size up NPCs for competence.